Push for transparency: What Supreme Court’s order on Bihar SIR says

Here’s a breakdown of the order, and its impact on the SIR.

Challenge to SIR

With the state set to head to polls in November, the ECI announced the Bihar SIR late in June. It said that demographic changes in the last 20 years meant that current electoral rolls contained many “repeated entries”, and “the situation [warranted] an intensive verification drive to verify each person before enrolment as an elector”.

Soon after this announcement, multiple petitioners challenged the SIR on both substantive and procedural grounds.

The substantive grounds included questions on the ECI’s powers to conduct such an exercise. The procedural grounds pertain ed to the modalities of conducting the SIR, including whether the 11 documents notified by the ECI to prove “citizenship” were valid; whether the 2003 voter list could be a valid cut-off date for inclusion; and whether Aadhaar could be excluded as a valid proof of identity for inclusion in the voters’ list.

These issues are yet to be determined by the apex court. However, in oral observations, the SC has indicated that ECI has the power to conduct such an exercise. This can also be inferred from the fact that the SC has allowed the SIR to continue.

“You (ECI) are exercising the power of intensive survey as a preliminary enquiry into every voter identity. The powers [to do so] are prima facie traceable, so we do not wish to interdict…but your manner has to be reasonable, has to give certain comfort to citizens,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, one of the two judges hearing the case, said.

This essentially leaves the procedural aspects of conducting the SIR still open for adjudication.

SC’s interim order

The ECI had, in its affidavit, told the SC that it was not required by law to publish a separate list of electors removed from the draft electoral rolls or to provide reasons for their non-inclusion. This was in opposition to a plea by the Association for Democratic Reforms seeking the release of names and details of the 65 lakh electors who did not make it to the draft published on August 1.

The ECI, in court, cited apprehensions that political parties might aggregate the data and that the publication could be a violation of the fundamental right to privacy.

The SC has, however, pushed back on this argument, underlining a citizen’s fundamental right to know why he or she has been deleted from the voter list. The court has directed the ECI to publish lists in which one can search by entering the EPIC number whether a voter has been deleted, and the reasons for such deletion.

The lists are required to be booth-wise, and also have to be displayed on the notice board of respective Panchayat Bhavans and offices of the Block Development Officer or Panchayat Officers.

This essentially enables individuals and political parties to check if a voter from the constituency has been removed from the rolls, and whether this exclusion is justified. As per the ECI, 7.24 crore of the 7.90 crore total voters have filled their forms in the SIR process. Of the 65 lakh individuals who have not been included in the draft rolls, 22 lakh are dead, the ECI said.

Recourse after deletion

The ECI had said that those whose names have not been included in the draft roll can submit  Form 6, the ECI’s form for registration of new electors, by September 1. Incidentally, Form 6 allows Aadhaar, both as proof of identity and residence for enrolment. The Electoral Registration Officer verifies the information submitted in Form 6, and enrols a new voter.

In its interim order, the SC directed that “aggrieved persons may submit their claims along with a copy of their Aadhaar Card”.

That said, whether this means that Aadhaar can be a valid document to be included as a voter again is still unclear. In its oral observations, the court said that “these are issues for the next stage”.

The court will hear the case again on August 22, and the issue of how to handle unfair exclusions is likely to be brought up then.